What will you do when Longhorn comes out?

Medic · Post by **Medic** » 2005-04-27 05:51am

The biggest chance of me getting Longhorn will be if I also get a new computer and why I would do this so soon I don't know why (let's NOT assume a catastorphic monsoon season in Korea this year -__-)

If a lot of new computer games come out and they all run better on Longhorn for some nebulous reason, then I might consider it, since this is a gaming machine I got.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2005-04-27 08:20am

I heard that XP can only manage 2 Gigs of RAM and that this will be better in Longhorn. Is that true?

If yes, I´ll get Longhorn. RAM shortage sucks.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2005-04-27 08:40am

I'll do the same thing I always do: Buy a big, shiny, gadget-filled new computer. I can't help it. I like buttons.

I am a consumer whore, Microsoft! Do you hear me? A WHORE!!! Violate me repeatedly with your shiny new dysfunctional technology upon which many neat games will be played!

Dead_Ghost · Post by **Dead_Ghost** » 2005-04-27 10:11am

I'll buy Longhorn 1,5-2 years after being released. It's a good idea to give some time in order for Micro$oft and the software houses adapt to each other

I doubt that Longhorn becomes a "must-have" before...

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2005-04-27 02:38pm

salm wrote:I heard that XP can only manage 2 Gigs of RAM and that this will be better in Longhorn. Is that true?

If yes, I´ll get Longhorn. RAM shortage sucks.

It isn't a limitation of Windows XP, it is a limitation of the x86 architecture. 32-bit processes can be allocated a maximum of 2GB of RAM. The proper solution is a 64-bit program (with an immensely larger address space) running on a 64-bit OS, like Windows XP64 pr OS X 10.4.

That's correct. If you want to change the innards of your computer, you have to reregister Windows. To do this, you contact Microsoft to reactivate your product key telling them that you upgraded your computer. Of course, this means that if you switch back to your old components, you have to go through the process again.

Reactivation is not always required; only when Windows detects a large enough hardware change.

Melchior · Post by **Melchior** » 2005-04-27 02:42pm

phongn wrote: Reactivation is not always required; only when Windows detects a large enough hardware change.

And do you find it honest?

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2005-04-27 02:45pm

Melchior wrote:
phongn wrote: Reactivation is not always required; only when Windows detects a large enough hardware change.
And do you find it honest?

I find registration a chore, I think its silly, but I can see where windows comes from.

What annoys me is the limit of changes before the CD-key is 'used up'.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-04-27 02:55pm

phongn wrote:
salm wrote:I heard that XP can only manage 2 Gigs of RAM and that this will be better in Longhorn. Is that true?

If yes, I´ll get Longhorn. RAM shortage sucks.
It isn't a limitation of Windows XP, it is a limitation of the x86 architecture. 32-bit processes can be allocated a maximum of 2GB of RAM. The proper solution is a 64-bit program (with an immensely larger address space) running on a 64-bit OS, like Windows XP64 pr OS X 10.4.

That's correct. If you want to change the innards of your computer, you have to reregister Windows. To do this, you contact Microsoft to reactivate your product key telling them that you upgraded your computer. Of course, this means that if you switch back to your old components, you have to go through the process again.
Reactivation is not always required; only when Windows detects a large enough hardware change.

Mac OS X 10.4 is not fully 64-bit, is it?
It has a lot of 64-bitness, but you can still run it on 32-bit hardware with all the main features.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2005-04-27 02:59pm

Melchior wrote:
phongn wrote: Reactivation is not always required; only when Windows detects a large enough hardware change.
And do you find it honest?

No idea. I've heard of some fairly non-trivial hardware changes not tripping activation and other times seemingly trivial changes doing it.

Praxis wrote:Mac OS X 10.4 is not fully 64-bit, is it?
It has a lot of 64-bitness, but you can still run it on 32-bit hardware with all the main features.

Not completely but much of it is 64-bit. Some is still 32-bit for various reasons (IIRC, like the GUI).

White Haven · Post by **White Haven** » 2005-04-27 03:00pm

Never, ever, EVER touch a Microsoft product before at least one major service pack. They can't code out of the box worth a tinker's damn...look at what a nightmare XP pre-SP1 was.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2005-04-27 07:38pm

salm wrote:I heard that XP can only manage 2 Gigs of RAM and that this will be better in Longhorn. Is that true?

Windows 9x can only handle 512mb of physical ram.

32bit Windows XP will only handle 4gb of physical ram. But each application can only use 2gb of virtual address space. The other 2gb is reserved for the system.

Applications for 32bit windows can only handle 2-3gb of virtual address space without being rebiult. 64bit versions can handle crazy amounts.

Virtual address space is not the same as physical memory

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2005-04-27 07:42pm

Praxis wrote:Mac OS X 10.4 is not fully 64-bit, is it?
It has a lot of 64-bitness, but you can still run it on 32-bit hardware with all the main features.

Mac OS X 10.4 is a 32bit OS with 64bit extensions.

64bit apps on 10.4 are only console apps, and cant touch any of the GUI APIs. For this reason you arent going to see a 64bit version of photoshop or the like for 10.4

It is a hidiously hack solution.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-04-27 08:10pm

ggs wrote:
Praxis wrote:Mac OS X 10.4 is not fully 64-bit, is it?
It has a lot of 64-bitness, but you can still run it on 32-bit hardware with all the main features.
Mac OS X 10.4 is a 32bit OS with 64bit extensions.

64bit apps on 10.4 are only console apps, and cant touch any of the GUI APIs. For this reason you arent going to see a 64bit version of photoshop or the like for 10.4

It is a hidiously hack solution.

I thought the 64-bit console only was Panther, and Tiger could have it in GUI?

Guess I thought wrong?

salm · Post by **salm** » 2005-04-28 10:58am

So, is Longhorn one of those funky 64-bit thingies?

<edit>Also, is this 32 bit - 64 bit stuff only a software thing or also a hardware thing?

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2005-04-28 11:56am

salm wrote:So, is Longhorn one of those funky 64-bit thingies?

<edit>Also, is this 32 bit - 64 bit stuff only a software thing or also a hardware thing?

Longhorn will be aviable in 32-bit and 64-bit.

And 64 bit is a hardware change, though it must be supported on the software side by 64-bit apps.

UPDATE: Windows has cut back Palladium.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2005-04-28 02:33pm

ggs wrote:It is a hidiously hack solution.

Not quite, you can apparently use threading to synchronize some sort of 64-bit backend with a 32-bit GUI frontend.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-04-28 02:51pm

Ace Pace wrote:

UPDATE: Windows has cut back Palladium.

Spotted that on /. today. Cool.

<edit>Also, is this 32 bit - 64 bit stuff only a software thing or also a hardware thing?

To get the benefits of 64-bit, you need a 64-bit processor (like the Athlon 64 or G5) and 64-bit software.

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2005-04-28 07:31pm

When Longhorn comes out, I'll install it on some computer and see how it works. If it's unhappy, it gets wiped. Not like it costs anything...

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-04-28 07:34pm

Seggybop wrote:When Longhorn comes out, I'll install it on some computer and see how it works. If it's unhappy, it gets wiped. Not like it costs anything...

With all the antipiracy stuff they're piling into Longhorn doing it without paying should be very, very tough, so it will cost something

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2005-04-28 08:47pm

Praxis wrote:
Seggybop wrote:When Longhorn comes out, I'll install it on some computer and see how it works. If it's unhappy, it gets wiped. Not like it costs anything...
With all the antipiracy stuff they're piling into Longhorn doing it without paying should be very, very tough, so it will cost something

Funny, isn't that what they said about XP?

Comosicus · Post by **Comosicus** » 2005-04-29 01:32am

I'll still keep XP for at least a good deal of time. No reasons for me to switch over.

Icehawk · Post by **Icehawk** » 2005-04-29 02:02am

I'll wait for the first service pack to be released for it before switching over.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2005-04-29 03:14am

phongn wrote:
ggs wrote:It is a hidiously hack solution.
Not quite, you can apparently use threading to synchronize some sort of 64-bit backend with a 32-bit GUI frontend.

The problem is it requires to rewrite your application into a client-server arrangement since the 64bit process & 32bit process need to use IPC to communicate. Thats a rather large change from how say photoshop works.

It would be considerably easier just to have the entire thing as 64bit. I would be very suprised if we see any major apps for the Mac to use the 64bit ackend & a 32bit frontend in a large GUI app.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2005-04-29 10:38am

I need shiny things, so I'll likely switch. If it doesn't work out I can always go back.

TacOne · Post by **TacOne** » 2005-04-29 05:22pm

I'll get it when it comes bundled with a new computer I'm buying.